John Hawkins writes that General Patraeus needs to be prepared for the onslaught from the Democratic party. It's in the Democrats' political interest to destroy anything and anyone that stands in their way to securing power, and right now they have their sights on Patraeus:

Moreover, in September, Petraeus is going to go to the Senate and give a very high profile report on what's happening -- and the reality is that our troops are succeeding. They're systematically tearing Al-Qaeda apart in Iraq, they are securing areas of the country that have long been out of control, and they're helping the Iraqis stand on their own two feet.

So, Petraeus is expected to say in September that political progress has been so-so, but that we have improved the security situation significantly and that if we give the surge more time, it will work.

If you're a Democratic Senator who desperately wants to see America lose the war in Iraq for political reasons, this puts you in a position of trying to pull American troops out of war we're on track to win against the advice of the general on the ground running the war. That will be embarrassing to the Democrats.

How can they deal with it? By using the politics of personal destruction that they perfected during the Clinton administration. They'll smear and attack Petraeus and they'll encourage their pals in the MSM to do the same thing. Just wait and see -- the democrats will try utterly crush Petraeus simply because he's a competent general, who is getting the job done in Iraq and will be willing to say so on the Senate floor.

Then we, pro-war activists, have to prepare for the attacks. We need to collect the evidence that the surge is working while remaining realistic that the Iraqi government needs to get its act together. Michael Yon, Michael Totten, and John Burns should be our sources on the ground. Away from Iraq webloggers need to be gathered and organized to counter the expected attack. We have been warned; it's time to mobilize.

It is the mindset of some that only those who blindly support Bush/Cheney are "pro-American activists". I would propose that there are many (in the case of the course we should be taking in Iraq a significant majority)whose views in what we believe America should stand for...differ.
My activism is pretty basic..volunteered in 1969..medical discharge 1972...have voted in every local election, Primary, General Election since 1972..at this time my pro-American activities are centered in my involvement with the Colorado Chapter of Veterans for Peace..
To have dissenting views on Government policy is at the core of America.
To proscribe that those who disagree with you are not pro-America speaks volumes what you and others who cling to this belief really know about America..jist sayin'http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

I have to agree with nogo slightly. "Pro-war" and "Pro-American" are not really good terms. I prefer to think of myself as "Pro-victory" while people like nogo and the rest of the leftists are "pro-defeat".

Yes, our defeat would also be a victory for Al Qaeda, and therefor anti-American, but nogo and the leftists cannot grasp this simple concept in their minds so they are not intentionally anti-American. To them it's just an unfortunate side effect of their political agenda and inconsequential in the fabricated reality in which they exist.

It seems worthy to note that Reid/Pelosi started hyping their line about how "the surge" has failed about the same time that reports from Iraq began telling about progress in Anbar and other areas. I think the Dems are scared out of their undies that the surge will in fact work and significant progress will be made by September, and they can't stand the idea of Bush and the pro-war advocates having anything that remotely approaches success. Hence their push for premature withdrawal.

Petraeus didn't get where he is without learning how to deal with hostile politicians, but he should be wary of how far the Dems will go to discredit what has been achieved, and to prevent any real progress, at least until after the '08 elections. As I said on my blog, it looks to me that the Dems are selling out the United States and jeopardizing the safety of our troops in Iraq, not to mention the people here at home, for political gain. That might not fit the legal definition of treason, but that's the closest word I know that describes how I feel about them.

this puts you in a position of trying to pull American troops out of war we're on track to win against the advice of the general on the ground running the war. That will be embarrassing to the Democrats.

Embarrassing to the Democrats? Hardly. The Dems have been trying to do this for years, and each time Bush says he has faith in the generals and that we're "on track to win". And each time Bush later proves the Dems right, fires the generals, appoints new ones, comes up with some faux "new" strategy, and the cycle repeats. The Dems have such low poll numbers for not sufficiently opposing Bush on the war. Rather than be embarrassed about challenging Bush's claims, they will be admired for it. If they have the balls to do it, that is.

What would you suggest they do? Within Constitutional guidelines I mean.

They've been doing it. Though not sufficiently aggressively, in the minds of the American people (hence the low poll numbers). The bills they keep proposing are weak and are repeatedly scuttled by the Republicans. I accept that that's the process, but it's bizarre for you to pretend that they don't exist.

Which leaves them only a single option, float a bill cutting off all funds that has no riders or amendments attached to it.

There's only a single option? You apparently have very poor analytical and political skills. And you don't comprehend the news.

Why haven't they do i9t Brian....hmmmmmm?

Because that's a stupid option that no one serious has proposed. It's just a strawman that you on the right like to pretend is the Democratic platform. But it's not.

I think we both know the answer to that don't we?

I do. Apparently you don't.

And we both know is has ZERO to do with such a bill chances of passing.

Correct, nor is it desired by either side. Which is why no one has seriously proposed it. Are you just now figuring that out?

No, I called them "insufficiently aggressive" and "weak". But "cowards" fits too. (Don't let your head explode from seeing me criticize the Democrats. People like you can't understand those who evaluate "good" and "bad" without regard to political affiliation.)

I accept that that's the process, but it's bizarre for you to pretend that they don't exist.

Quote where I said they didn't exist. They've tried every political stunt in their bag of tricks and failed. The ONLY legal option they have is defund the war.

But in your world it's a "stupid option," since when taking the LEGAL option stupid?

Along with your other fantastical thoughts you fail to fully understand what a "strawman argument is.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute,

OK asshat now you can explain how how using their only legal option, defunding the war, is a strawman argument.

Not to include political stunts of course.

And I still fail to see an answer to the salient question ("What would you suggest they do?") calling the dems "insufficiently aggressive" and "weak" ain't it.

You don't mind if I continue to maintain my normal respiration rate, as opposed to holding my breath while waiting, do you?

Rather than be embarrassed about challenging Bush's claims, they will be admired for it. If they have the balls to do it, that is.
-------------------------------------
Yup liberals are really proud to do the bidding for the AlQ terrorists. In other words, liberals want to fight Bush but they don't want to fight AlQ.

Your question, "What would you suggest they do?" implies that you're not aware of what they've been doing. And since I assume you actually can comprehend what you read, the only other explanation is that you're pretending not to.

The ONLY legal option they have is defund the war. But in your world it's a "stupid option," since when taking the LEGAL option stupid?

Hmm, now you're creating an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of your opponent's position. What's that called again?

You said they have "only a single option, float a bill cutting off all funds". That is false. There are other LEGAL options, such as reduce funding based on benchmarks achieved or not achieved.

Along with your other fantastical thoughts you fail to fully understand what a "strawman argument is.

Oh?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Like when you falsely claimed that Dems have "only a single option"?

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute,

Like when you mocked the Dems for not having implemented your falsely-stated "only single option"?

OK asshat now you can explain how how using their only legal option, defunding the war, is a strawman argument.

Done.

And I still fail to see an answer to the salient question ("What would you suggest they do?")

OK, I renew my assumption that you either can't comprehend reality or you just don't bother to pay attention.

You don't mind if I continue to maintain my normal respiration rate, as opposed to holding my breath while waiting, do you?

Do what you like. I enjoy each time you make a snarky comment about how you don't expect me to respond to you. It makes it much more satisfying when I do and torpedo each of your points along with it.

There is no mechanism in the "benchmarks" part of the funding bill which takes back appropriated funds. The purpose of the "benchmarks" was to be a guide for future action.

If Congress should decide the benchmarks have been insufficiently met, their recourse would be to cut off funds going forward. Interestingly, most of the benchmarks which are being achieved already are those regarding military and security objectives of our forces, while most that remain unfulfilled are those requiring political progress from the Iraqi government.

On the political questions, one thing we have learned - much to our consternation - about the Iraqis is they never seem to do anything ahead of the last possible moment, and often miss their "deadlines," whether self-imposed or mandates from Washington.

In the last few days, though, we have, at least, seen the return of the boycotting Sunni parliamentary factions as well as Sadr's party. Those who had walked away are now back at the table. I await the leftists' explanation of how this is not a positive development.

Interestingly, most of the benchmarks which are being achieved already are those regarding military and security objectives of our forces, while most that remain unfulfilled are those requiring political progress from the Iraqi government.

Precisly, and what is ignored (their not stupid enough to NOT know are they?) by the barneyGRUBBLES. the Lee "a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Smith">Edward Smith Wards, and Paul Hamiltons is Patraeus said from the very beginning it would take both a military and political success and the mil side of the equation MUST occur first.

No it's just that a question to YOU. But YOU decide to ignore the question.

I did not ignore the question. I answered it. Multiple times. You just pretend to not notice so you can continue asking it. Does that make you feel manly?

My position their only option is to cut funds.

If you mean cut all funds immediately, then see "that's a stupid option", above. If you mean reduce funds over time, then that's exactly what they've proposed -- repeatedly -- so you're a liar for saying they haven't done it.

No, liberals are really proud to do the bidding of the majority of Americans.
------------------------------------
I have asked you to show me the poll results of a poll that asked the honest questions about the consequences about a withdrawal from Iraq. You keep repeating these dishonest polls.

Again, you simply show again that the liberal left cannot be honest but to lie and distort.

Please show me the result of another poll that asks this question:

Since AlQ is in Iraq now, we should withdraw from Iraq and let the Iraqui fight AlQ themselves. We liberal dems believe that the withdrawal will enhance the security of America. AlQ will not try to attack American homeland if we leave Iraq

Brian is simply a propagandist for the liberal dems. The dems voted down John Doe provision to give the terrorists and their sympathizers the maximum protection of the law. Brian is a proud defender of the despicable action of the liberal dems. Again, the liberals are proud to do the bidding of AlQ. Liberals want to enhace their shameful record of aiding the communists during the cold war.